Law of Chastity for Homosexuals
Cindy Jensen says:
Gay members of the Church have it bad, as they say. They can be members in good standing if they never have a fulfilling relationship. What a trade.
However, luckily, they can still function as good members if they agree to celibacy. I have a good friend (single) who’s a temple worker in his 30s and never plans to marry or change his homosexuality (good luck, R.!).
People in the Church have conflicting views on what is allowed in terms of worthiness/temple-worthiness for gays. Some say two gay people holding hands would be breaking the Law of Chastity. Huh???? Does that mean two unmarried heteros would break the Law of Chastity if they held hands?
So how far in a friendship can a gay person go without breaking the Law of Chastity? Kissing? Cuddling? Anything but intercourse?
Whatever rule you come up with applies to single and divorced (still unmarried) heterosexual members of the Church as well.
Comment by Kurt — July 23, 2005 @ 12:37 pm
The rule is to avoid “sexual relations.” I take that to mean any kind of sexual behavior. Look up the word “lasciviousness” in the dictionary. Then look it up in the scriptures. This isn’t rocket science, people. Anybody who actually wants to keep the Law of Chastity won’t have any problem finding out what is OK and what is not. The answer is that nothing is OK if it arouses the emotion of lust. And for some people that is almost everything.
Comment by John W. Redelfs — July 24, 2005 @ 1:43 am
Your answer is not very descriptive. Are you saying that for some unmarried heterosexuals holding hands is against the Law of Chastity?
Or would you agree that two men holding hands would not be against it?
Comment by billybob — July 24, 2005 @ 2:35 am
And I guess the LDS answer to gays is to tell them they can never go on a date! Wow!
Comment by billybob — July 24, 2005 @ 3:22 am
If you can hold hands without feeling any lust, go for it. Some people can’t even stand in the same room with another without getting aroused. The idea is to avoid arousing sexual feelings that are inappropriate except in marriage between a man and a woman. And Kurt is right, this counsel applies equally to heterosexuals who are not married.
Comment by John W. Redelfs — July 24, 2005 @ 8:09 am
Let’s try to think as inclusively as possible when discussing this issue. It’ll be good practice in case the church eventually adopts a more inclusive policy with respect to homosexuals.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — July 24, 2005 @ 1:44 pm
Thank you for raising the issue of sex and double standards, Cindy.
Think about the problem of sex from the perspective of the Golden Rule. As a religion, we are demanding that people other than ourselves ought to live celibate. Under the Golden Rule don’t we incur an obligation therefore to live celibate ourselves? How would we feel if somebody told us that there is no way to ever enjoy sex legitimately.
No species relies on volition when it comes to procreation. Regulating sexuality without providing an outlet is futile. Celibacy does not work. Only very few individuals have the capacity to live celibate if any at all. If we really think that it is right to demand celibacy from others then we have an obligation to live celibate ourselves.
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — July 24, 2005 @ 2:06 pm
Cindy,
Great post for Open Forum. I don’t have all the answers to this and certainly wish your friend the best. John Redelfs having fun w/ us aside, no serious person would equate a heterosexual PDA w/ a LofC violation. So let’s be fair to our gay/lesbian brothers and sisters. Members equating homosexual PDA w/ a LofC violation are in denial of homosexuality within the church or just want the gay/lesbian members to stay in the closet. And frankly, given our uncandid LDS culture, those attitudes are understandable. “Gays are welcome in the church” is slogan, not policy. But it’s also perplexing at the same time. The church has more effeminate men than any other organization I’m involve in. BYU, at least when I was there, had even more. I always assumed most of them were gay, and the ones that aren’t I assume don’t mind if you think they’re gay. As a BYU undergrad, I used to joke when someone would say a certain flammer wasn’t gay: “Alright, I’ll say he’s gay but just hasn’t figured it out yet.” All that said, the few guys I served with on my mission who later came out of the closet were/are straight acting. But I digress.
Back to topic, the church policy/culture continues to evolve. When it comes to church discipline, in my lifetime, which is likely more than half over, our church has held homosexuals to a lower standard than the heterosexual majority. As posted elsewhere in the bloggernacle, I had major LofC problems before and after my mission, and during that time the church’s leniency w/ homosexuals bothered me because at least my sin was “natural”. Over time, however, I mellowed out and realized the church’s practice makes sense. We don’t know what causes homosexuality and we know people don’t wake up one day and choose to be gay or lesbian. Also, homosexual activity isn’t going to result in out of wedlock pregnancy. And we don’t consider married heterosexual anal intercourse or use of toys as sins. So it makes sense some understanding and accommodation is in order. Hey at least the church no longer encourages homosexuals to marry in an attempt to “cure” them. So the policy continues to evolve.
I see the church moving to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” for all unmarried adults. The present policy treats all single adults like children, which seems most disrespectful. Specifically w/ homosexuals, however, I think the church leaders should privately encourage those that cannot reframe for the riskier behaviors to seek long term monogamous relationships to mitigate the risks of AIDS/STD’s. The old policy of pushing gays to marry typically resulted in problematic marriages where two people were bearing a burden that no one should have to bear.
Comment by Steve EM — July 24, 2005 @ 3:33 pm
Steve EM, I liked your post, although I’m really surprised that you think the Church is more lenient towards repentant gays than they are to straight members.
Anyhoo, I agree that it would be great if the Church acknowledged that gays deserve (and need) companionship, partnership, sex and commitment just as straights do. I don’t think the day will ever come when they will officially endorse or encourage committed relationships between gay members, though. If that were the case, they would accept gay married couples in Massachusetts, Canada and elsewhere such partnerships are allowed. They don’t.
So gays are expected to be dateless, companionsless, sexless and alone for time AND for all eternity. I thought this Church was for everyone…
Comment by Cindy Jensen — July 24, 2005 @ 5:26 pm
And I guess my original question was also meant to explore the eternal implication os gay relationships, covenants, etc.
1. Since marriage outside of the church/temple is recognized as valid (for instance, two heteros, legally married by a JP would not be denied baptism), why would two gays legally married in Cambridge, Massachusetts be denied membership (or would they)? As Steve EM said, it’s not the sex acts per se that are wrong (since heteros can perform the same acts without sinning).
2. What’s the brass ring for LDS gays? If my friend the temple worker lives his whole life worthily, what’s on the other side for him? Does he change into a straight person in the twinkling of an eye and then have a wife and children? Is that how it works? Or does he get to be a lonesome ministering angel forever and ever?
4. Will there ever be a(n outwardly) gay
GA or other high-ranking LDS man? I know that Evan Stephens, former director of the Tabernacle Choir, was gay and so was Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith. But until there are others in this century, gays will always get a bad rap.
Comment by Cindy Jensen — July 24, 2005 @ 5:52 pm
Cindy,
I assume that while homosexuality might be a choice for some, it’s obvious most are just born that way based on my own heterosexual orientation. Well before puberty, I knew women had all the right equipment for me, long before I understood the reproductive aspects of sexual desire. Since heterosexuality/reproduction is the norm, I assume ingrained homosexuality is a birth defect of sorts since complete homosexuality is a Darwinian dead end. Therefore I have to believe in the resurrection all will come forth straight.
My suspicion is that the human mind is so complex, that during embryonic/fetal development, sometimes something goes wrong. To those who say G-d wouldn’t do that, I ask why does the almighty allow any birth defect? It’s a chaotic world. Remember, the war in heaven continues here, etc.
In another example, some XXY males (extra X chromosome) have female appearing genitalia and consider themselves lesbian while they’re genetically male. I have to believe all of this stuff gets fixed at the resurrection.
Does this mean I think BKP is full of crap on this subject? Yeah. Ironically, I’d put money on the guy being a repressed homosexual too.
Comment by Steve EM — July 25, 2005 @ 2:45 am
Helmut,
People can exercise celibacy, while there is an obvious biological drive to not act that way, plenty of people have done it, RC priests and nuns and the the Shaker movement are good examples of people who voluntarily do it for religious reasons. While there are glaring notable failures among both populations, neither have had or do experience 100% failure rates. There are also plenty of singles in the LDS Church (and presumably other denominations as well) who really do live chastely prior to marriage, regardless of those who fail to do so.
Cindy,
The Church is for everyone…who wants to repent and draw closer to Christ. The Church cannot be expected to condone sinful behavior to make it more inclusive, as that would be completely contrary to its intended purpose. The Church is not a social organization of feelgoodness, its a beaurocratic institution designed to get people closer to Christ. As such, telling people with a particular problem that they cannot repent and granting them a pass to sin simply doesnt fit the intent and purpose.
The questions you ask in post 10 defy any kind of good answers because anything any one says will only be pure speculation. If anyone tries to hazard a guess at them, they will only be attacked by someone else who disagrees using an equally baseless speculative argument.
God and Nature both reject homosexuality unequivocally, pop culture fads notwithstanding. Sitting around trying to figure out how to shoehorn a particular sin, any sin, into something that rejects it is not going to result in anything useful or satisfying. It just doesnt work, it cannot. Look at the madness the Anglican Church is going through now, its tearing them apart, because what a vocal minority is trying to do is impossible.
Steve,
Youre beating a dead horse on your anti-apostles thing. What, are you running for office? Steve for Qof12 in 2008!?!?!?
Comment by Kurt — July 25, 2005 @ 11:23 am
Some of my questions in #10 are concrete, actual answer-specific queries and others are hypotheticals, but they all are questions with which LDS grapple, especially those with loved ones, family members or friends who are gay.
And missionaries or members who teach in neighborhoods where there are large concentrations of gay community members must encounter these questions as well.
Let me ask in another way:
1. If a pair of missionaries knocked on the door of a legally married gay couple (or a family headed by a legally married pair), would they be encouraged or discouraged from teaching them? If the family was interested in the gospel, would the missionaries be allowed to teach them? Would they ba able to baptize them?
2. Since gay people who want to remain in the church are asked to be celibate, what are they taught about the afterlife? The next life is a motivator for many married (m/f) couples and their families. What is supposed to be the motivator for active LDS gays? That they’ll change completely (even though we are told that the same spirit that embodies us in life will inhabit us after we die)? Is that really supposed to be the best they can hope for?
3. Is this why single men are not made bishops, stake presidents, etc.? Because they might be perceived as gay because they don’t have families? If that’s not the reason, what is?
Comment by Cindy Jensen — July 25, 2005 @ 1:05 pm
Cindy,
OK, I’ll hazard a guess at your questions, but its just a load of speculation, so anyone else can speculate anything too:
1) No, they wouldnt be baptised or actively proselyted. Being legally married in MA, or wherever, would be irrelevant, as the behavior is rejected. Fornication, adultery, prostitution, and so on are variously legal in different states, but thats all rejected by the Church. The Church wouldnt allow a legally licensed prostitute in the Church.
2) I would assume the standard Church approach to this would be that when they are resurrected, if they have been celibate, then they would be resurrected sans the homosexual urges and then be permitted to heterosexually marry and have access to everything else eternal. I dont see any reason why they would be relegated to being ministering angels.
3) No, this has nothing to do with being gay. The practical side of this is Bishops can easily be put into compromising situations (e.g., unhappy wives, single sisters, widows, YSAs, etc.) and being married helps to avoid a lot of those situations. Being in a counselling situation that can involve matters of chastity would be very problematic for a single man.
Comment by Kurt — July 25, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
Kurt,
It may very well be that some people live celibacy successfully. Many fail with horrible consequences for other people. In terms of consequences, we have seen that celibacy does not work. I refer you to the extensive literature on illegitimate children of priests sworn to celibacy and the recent child abuse revelations. Sexuality is an essential feature of humanity. Denial rarely brings about positive outcomes.
More importantly, there is a big difference between chosing celibacy for oneselve or imposing celibacy on others. Notice that you are evading the question of the Golden Rule. Since you seem to advocate that celibacy be imposed on others, wouldn’t you agree that you have an obligation to live lifelong celibacy yourself?
The best way to minimize the negative effects of sex is to legitimize it in committed relationships. That is what I want for myself. I will not deny it to others.
Steve,
Your statement that “complete homosexuality is a Darwinian dead end” may be correct in the sense of the selfish gene hypothesis. However, from the perspective of the species or a community barren members can make tremendous contributions to the survival of off-spring. The involvement of grandmothers in child care, for example, was a critical advantage in the evolution of the human species. Similarly, over long periods of human history children’s teachers were childless, whether they were monks or single women. Childless individuals contribute tremendously to society in terms of leadership and research, for example. Those benefits result in the decrease of child mortality. For an altricious species such as humans that require an extreme amount of nurture, homosexuality may well be a natural advantage (by the way, homosexual behavior has been observed among other altricious species such as chimpanzees and other great apes as well).
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — July 25, 2005 @ 3:04 pm
Kurt,
Thanks for answering my questions. I have a follow-up question:
If gays are legally married, exactly what sin are they committing?
Two heteros could get legally married by a licensed marriage officer in a clown suit, and the
church would accept THEM as married; why not legally married gay couples who are upstanding in every area of their lives?
Is this to say that a married gay couple could not merit eternal life unless they get divorced and live apart the rest of their lives? Could they still hold hands? Kiss? Make out? Or are they destined to be hermits, eunuchs-for-Christ, if you will, until they are magically turned into heterosexuals?
Comment by Cindy Jensen — July 25, 2005 @ 3:51 pm
Hellmut,
Your analysis of the failings of RC priests to be celibate is superficial at best. Practicing gays largely took over RC seminaries and deliberately screened out anyone not sympathetic to their cause. That completely undermined the celibacy clause, as a lot of them had no intention from the outset of even observing it. They deliberately created a biased population to begin with. Even so, despite the huge amount of publicity the failures received, that does not mean a majority of the the priests failed to remain celibate. Rejecting something does work because of the failures of a minority does not logically follow.
There are plenty of people who succesfully observe the Law of Chastity with positive outcomes. Its the people who do not observe it who have the negative outcomes. Denial works great for lots of people.
How am I denying the Golden Rule? If you dont want to observe the Church’s regulations regarding the Law of Chastity, then leave the Church. Nobody is forcing anyone to attend Church. Its a voluntary organization. Nobody is imposing anything on anyone. When was the last time someone was converted at sword point in the LDS Church?
Nobody is denying anybody a lifelong committed relationship, it just has to be through a heterosexual marriage as far as the Church is concerned. The Church is not going to compromise on that point, any more than it will compromise on any other point regarding the Law of Chastity. The best way to minimize the negative effects of sex is to observe the Lord’s regulations concerning its use, not making up new rules as pop culture sees fit.
No species has individuals which are truly homosexual except humans. Some species of animals have individuals which exhibit dominance behavior that appears homophilic, but its intended to establish a pecking order, and its not sexually exclusive as the dominant one will go on to reproduce with others of the opposite sex. Attempts to equating animal behavior with human behavior are weak at best because individual animals would have to be classified as bisexual, not homosexual.
The simple fact that anything truly homosexual doesnt reproduce and pass on its genes necessarily removes them from the gene pool. Even recessive genes contributing to this kind of behavior would quickly drop out. Nurturing someone else’s offspring does nothing to keep your DNA in the gene pool, regardless of whether you are contributing to the community or not. Just ask the Shakers, they were great at caring for other’s children.
Comment by Kurt — July 25, 2005 @ 4:15 pm
Cindy,
The Lord explicitly prohibits homosexuality, they are sinning against the Lord whether it is legal according to man’s laws or not.
Prostitution is legal in some places, and the Lord prohibits that. Are you going to argue that since prostitution is legal in some places that a single man and safely do that without it being the sin of fornication?
The Lord endorses marriage for heterosexuals, clown suit notwithstanding. The person doing the marriage is irrelevant as long as they have legal authority.
Homosexuality directly violates the Lord’s plans, so of course he will not endorse it. The whole purpose of Creation is to procreate, and homosexuals arent doing this. Can they choose to violate His plan? Sure, thats what free agency is all about. But, that doesnt make it not a sin.
I am guessing they will have to be eunuchs for Christ in order to get into Celestial Kingdom. Thats the same for anyone else who is single, widowed, divorced. Why should gays get a pass?
Comment by Kurt — July 25, 2005 @ 4:32 pm
Kurt,
The claim that practising gays took over the priesthood is not only ridiculous, it is immaterial to the question at hand. With respect to celibacy it is irrelevant whether a person is gay or straight. What matters is whether a person is sexually active or not. If you carefully read my posts you will find a reference to the children of Roman Catholic priests.
Of course, homosexuals gravitate to seminaries. They always have. You are making my point. If you set up an institution for celibacy, sexuality only manifests itself in another way.
The harm of celibacy is the consequence of unrealistic expectations that deny the nature of sexuality. While I have not seen a systematic analysis of the sex life of the population of Roman Catholic priests, we know that the proportion of priest among Catholics is not only small but declining. We also know that a substantial share does enter sexual relations with women and some with men. According to the site that you have linked some 50% of priests are gay. It follows then that only a minority of priests committed to celibacy have been able to abide by it. It is a miniscule fraction of the general population that commits and lives celibacy.
Concluding from those exceptions that celibacy is a sustainable institution is like saying that anyone can run one hundred meters under ten seconds just because others have done it.
By the way, I have never conducted “an analysis” of the sex life of Catholic priests but referred you to the literature on the topic. If you speak German you can start reading Gottes Heimliche Kinder.
Though I do admire the Shakers’ discipline and commitment, your example of the Shakers does not apply to my argument about the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality because the Shakers were an exclusively celibate subculture. Their effect on parents and children they took in every winter, however, was tremendous. In the process, the Shakers did shape the American gene pool.
However, my arguments applied to collectives where childless individuals are interspersed with parents. It is important to notice that the genes of a childless person do not only get replicated but obtain a competitive advantage if the efforts of that person benefit related children. For example, right after World War II my mother was taken in by an uncle who was an unmarried minister. My mother’s calorie intake was increased substantially. She had four children who share some proportion of her uncle’s gene pool. This intervention may not have been critical (though it did make a big difference to my six year old mother) but it illustrates how the childless contribute to the survival of the species and kinship groups in many different ways (soldiers, caregivers, laborers, leaders, and teachers).
With regard to imposition, you might want to remember that the church has used referenda in half a dozen states to make its view of human sexuality the law of the land. It turns that the church involves itself in the lifes of those gays that thought they had left it behind.
More importantly, theologically it does not make sense to consider the church as an organization comparable to a bowling league or horticulturists association. After all, the church claims to possess the exclusive keys to salvation. Withholding access to the sacraments to believers is a coercive act.
Your claim that there is no homosexuality in the animal kingdom is factually wrong. For instances of genuine homosexuality, not bisexuality, among primates, I refer you to the work of Frans de Waal. You might enjoy Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes.
The identification of homosexuals with divorcees, widowers, and singles does not hold. Any hetero has the hope of practising his or her sexuality while preserving their standing in the church as well as the hope of salvation. Homosexual Saints do not have the option to ever meet their sexual needs with another consenting adult legitimately. Imagine what you would feel like if those standards were applied to you.
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — July 25, 2005 @ 7:51 pm
If they wore a condom, couldn’t they can say that they never even touched each other?
Comment by Herbie — July 26, 2005 @ 3:34 am
Herbie,
Using that same rationale someone could put on a latex glove, then punch someone else in the face and claim it wasnt assault because he never touched them.
Hellmut,
Your logic is sloppy and I am tired of talking to you. I never said gays took over the RC Priesthood, I said they took over the RC seminaries, and the stats support that premise. There are no statistics to support your conclusion that only a “miniscule fraction” abides a celibate lifestyle. The example of the Shakers directly addressed your statement, you appear to be blind to it however because despite the influence they had on the American gene pool all of their DNA has entirely dropped out, which is precisely what would happen to anyone who is genetically homosexual. You are twisting things around to avoid that simple fact. Your presentation of the Church is grossly biased as it is not imposing its will or coercing anyone who isnt an active and willing voluntarily participating member. Nobody is forcing anyone to be part of the LDS Church. I can easily find slanted position pieces parading as science to counter your ape study. Animals only practice seemingly homosexual behavior when they are denied heterosexual activity because of hierarchical dominance (i.e., subordinates excluded from heterosexual activty by dominant individuals). As soon as they have the opportunity to participate in heterosexual activity, they abandon the seemingly homosexual behavior and go hetero, but some never have that opportunity because they do not outlive the dominant individual, that doesnt make them exclusively homosexual, it makes them opportunity limited. Using them a model and apology for human behavior has very unflattering repercussions, which is why most gays are smart enough to not use this as a defense. Homosexuals do have the option of meeting their sexual needs, by relying on the grace of the Lord and repenting and changing so they can be sinless and heterosexually active. People have done it. The same Law of Chastity that applies to me applies to you and every other member of the Church. No, I dont speak German, and like I said above, I am tired of your loopy logic. If you reply again, I will probably ignore you as it seems unlikely you will do anything but post more false attributions and bad allegations.
Comment by Kurt — July 26, 2005 @ 10:27 am
I sometimes worry that we may be misinterpreting the Lord’s will with respect to homosexuals, much as we did for over a century with respect to people of African descent. Reading a bunch of comments in which people offer certain statements about the Lord’s will on a subject that doesn’t really get much explicit discussion in the scriptures always alarms me, for this reason.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — July 26, 2005 @ 1:28 pm
Let’s go easy on Hellmut. I think he’s just advocating tolerance for an orientation we straights just can’t understand, which, btw, seems to be the way the church handles it too. Cindy – yes, in general, the church in my lifetime has been more lenient with homosexual sin vs. hetero sin. Out of all our LDS scriptures, only the bible addresses homosexuality and in a somewhat obscure fashion. We have no record of Jesus even mentioning it, but he did make a big deal about judging the sins of others. Hellmut may have a valid point about possible evolutionary aspects of human homosexually. Ever notice how women, will hang w/ and work easily w/ gay guys? Even my wife does it, and she calls attractive gay men the equivalent of what I call attractive lesbians, a waste of _____. It could be that some gay males in a hunter-gather group provided distract organizational advantages to that group. As far as the sexual opportunity argument, modern gay males just don’t seem to be into women in a sexual sense at all, just like I couldn’t fathom “sex” w/ a man. Hence why the church abandoned pressuring gays to marry; it didn’t work. Even if the guy was faithful, the wife was left unfulfilled. I do believe some gays are blessed w/ healing and, in effect, become hetero, but like any healing, some are healed and some suffer for reasons we don’t understand. Yeah, there are some people who can go both ways (bisexuals), but that seems pretty rare.
Kurt, I never thought of BKP as a dead horse, but I see the point of beating up on a pathetic old man. Seriously, I’m advocating a retirement tradition for older apostles no longer up to the job. On my BKP comment, as far as I know, he’s never retracted his ridiculous statements that there are no mistakes in sexual orientation, transgender phenomenon, etc (imagine his sheltered existence where he is oblivious to the chaotic world in which we live). He’s the Marie Antoinette of his generation. Almost the entire church has moved on from him and he’s become an irrelevant anachronism. What’s wrong w/ stating the obvious? Other example, our church leaders, w/ few exceptions, no longer obsess about youth and young adult masturbation anymore, another BKP fascination.
Now, I have some questions I’d like an LDS lesbian to answer. Since lesbians often use toys, why couldn’t a man fulfill them w/ the real thing? Is it a twist on Freud’s penis envy thing? Are lesbians attracted to these transgender guys who take estrogen for female breasts and fat distribution but keep their weenies?
Comment by Steve EM — July 26, 2005 @ 3:24 pm
Roasted Tomatoes,
Amen brother.
Examine these two definitive statements of Brigham Young.
1. “What man or woman on earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens?” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p. 127)
2. “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.”
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95.)
Now examine these 4 statements from him:
1. “You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind….Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).
2. “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)
3. “Cain and his posterity will remain cursed and not receive the priesthood until all other children of Adam have had this privilege.”
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 143)
4. “The curse will remain on blacks so that they can never hold the Mormon priesthood until all other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood.”
Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 291)
…And it came to pass, that Brigham was full of $!*+, despite his “authority” and “knowledge” of the status of blacks before god.
It seems now that there is another group LDS leaders deem “uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits”. I just hope that it doesn’t take another 100+ years before their descendents realize that they also are full of $#@+ with respect to homosexuals.
Comment by Herbie — July 26, 2005 @ 3:56 pm
Steve,
I’ll go easy on Hellmut as long as he doesnt falsely attribute stuff to me. I can politely disagree with anybody all day long over anything, but I will not tolerate people sticking words in my mouth and then faulting me for something I never said. You know that.
And the Bible is absolutely not obscure or ambiguous on homosexuality. Saying that the LDS canon doesnt address it isnt the case either, as it clearly and unambiguously presents heterosexual marriage as the only means of getting into heaven, with flat out rejections of all other forms of sexual activity. The LDS canon doesnt explicitly prohibit beastiality, are you going to sit there and tell me that the OT is obscure on it and the LDS canon doesnt comment on it?
Sheesh, your arm must be getting tired from flogging poor old Mr. Ed. Dang, dude.
Herbie,
Finding fault with BY doesnt accomplish anything useful, and doesnt do anything to address the subject at hand. He made a mistake in doctrine. Stop the presses. Attempting to equate the BandP issue with homosexuality is bad on many different levels. The Lord flatly and unequivocally rejects homosexual behavior, and no pop culture nonsense will ever change that, whether 100 years pass or not. The only crap floating around is the idea the Lord will wise up to fadist notions of sexual immorality. He rejected all of the Canaanite sexual immorality, and nothing has changed in the 1000s of years since then, 100 years isnt going to do anything, but see people realize that homosexuality isnt cool and hip, its a self-destructive behavior with a legacy of pain and misery.
Comment by Kurt — July 26, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
Methinks Kurt protesteth too much. He is determined to eliminate all hope, joy, and reason for living amongst those predisposed to this orientation. Such preoccupation usually belies an internal struggle.
The Bible is not any more obscure on this subject that it is on eating pork, wearing mixed fabrics, stoning adulterers and neglecting the poor. But we have already numbed our consciences to those items, haven’t we?
And who says that gays are not the modern day lepers? This role of hated minority has been filled before by the jews, muslims, blacks, chinese, savages, slaves and now the gays. There truly is nothing new under the sun.
Comment by Kevin — July 26, 2005 @ 6:32 pm
Dear Kurt,
I apologize for calling your claim about Catholic seminaries ridiculous.
On a personal note, Kurt, I very much understand your frustration with my arguments. Just a few years ago I would have taken positions similar to yours. I might have given you reason for your anger. I apologize for misattributing some of your arguments. I have taken the occasion and printed your text and read it carefully. I am certainly willing to submit to the weight of logic and evidence.
I am actually quite sensitive to charges of logical and factual error. If you can demonstrate contradiction or non-sequitur logic then I would certainly feel compelled to change my position.
Chimpanzee Politics is not a slanted advocacy piece but a peer reviewed study published by Johns Hopkins University Press. Its author Frans de Waal is a professor at Emory University who has published four articles in Nature and Science since 1997. That makes him a preeminent primatologist.
Chimpanzee Politics falsifies the assertion that animals “. . . will only participate in homosexuality when they are denied heterosexual activity . . ..” It clearly describes an individual who prefers homosexual activity and only engages into hetero sex when raped by the alpha male. Your dismissal of Chimpanzee Politics without reading it does not persuade me.
Exploring the complexity of genetic replication, sexuality, and human society does not amount to “. . . twisting things around . . .” to avoid a “. . . simple fact.” Fact is that kinship groups share a substantial set of genes and that parents pass on recessive genes. Siblings other than identical twins will share an average of 50% of genes. One cannot argue that homosexuality will go extinct or that the procreation of groups that tolerate homosexuality is compromised without addressing these rather basic features of genetics and human procreation.
By the way, I never said that homosexuality is genetic. I am arguing, however, that homosexuality is natural. One can observe homosexual behaviors in a wide variety of human cultures and among other primates. I suspect that the gender orientation of human sexuality is probably much more continuous than the queer/straight dichotomy and that the causes of homosexuality are diverse.
I am also not in the business of finding excuses for homosexuality. Homosexuality just is whether I excuse it or condemn it.
With respect to numbers, my statement was that “. . .a miniscule fraction of the general population that commits and lives celibacy.” I apologize for not being entirely clear. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there were 45,000 Catholic priests in the United States in 2002. According to the CIA world fact book 24% out of 295,734,134 Americans was Roman Catholic, which amounts to 70,976,192 individuals. That means that there are 6.34 priests sworn to celibacy for every 10,000 Catholics. By itself that figure is miniscule. The web site that you linked estimated that half of the priests in seminary were gay, many of whom engaged into homosexual activities. (Knowing quite a few seminarians and Catholic priests, I think that those numbers are exaggerated. But since you provided them, it is certainly legitimate that I use them for the sake of argument. Notice if we were to accept these stats as accurate then that would mean at the very least that the majority of seminarians do not live celibate). Beyond gay sex we also know that a number of Roman Catholic priests break celibacy and father illegitimate children. Even when adding nuns, for whom I could not find reliable statistics, the proportion of Catholics that succeed living celibacy is tiny.
Not that there is anything wrong with being gay but I happen to be straight. Thank heaven I can live a fulfilled sex life. I would not want to live chaste again. Neither would I want to engage into gay sex. Therefore I will not impose straight sex on gay people.
Encouraging gays to marry straight women has horrible consequences. It is not fair to wives who have a claim on their husbands’ passion. It is not fair to expose the children to an inherently unstable family. It broke my heart when I read Carol Lynn Pearson’s autobiography Good Bye, I Love You who married a gay man in the temple. You can actually find quite a bit about her experience on the web. I would not wish the experience of a gay straight marriage on my worst enemies.
When gay men are forced underground and hide in marriage the consequences are disastrous. The spread of aids to Mormon women as well as church going African Americans is not only a tragedy but indicates what is really going on in the sex life of gays who deny their sexuality for one reason or another.
With respect to the LDS Church imposing its sense of morality on others, I refer to California Proposition 22 and other initiatives that deny homosexuals the opportunity to enjoy sex legitimately within the bounds of marriage. These forays into politics shape the sex life of Mormon, ex-Mormon, and never-Mormon gays alike. I continue to maintain that denying the sacraments to believers is coercive as well. As a faithful Christian I believe that matters that regard eternity are much more consequential than physical coercion.
Herbie’s reference to Brigham Young’s statements about race is very pertinent. LDS leaders have erred about human nature before. As Christians we cannot afford to live on borrowed light. It is our obligation to make the best sense of the world as we can.
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — July 26, 2005 @ 7:08 pm
BKP = Mr. Ed. I love it. Does that mean BRM = Wilber? Man, I’m really dating myself.
Comment by Steve EM — July 26, 2005 @ 7:15 pm
I think the comparison between homosexuality and blacks and the priesthood is a straightforward one. In both instances, a vast web of doctrine was developed by church leaders to support excluding a particular, disfavored group from full church ans societal involvement. In both instances, the arguments that were developed interacted lightly at best with the scriptures. By the way, scriptural statements that do condemn homosexuality are often passing references or possibly an author’s personal biases (Paul says that women should be silent in church, Paul doesn’t like homosexuals, Paul is a great theologian but sometimes lets his personal biases get in the way–I’m not saying this is true, but it is at least plausible).
The idea that the LDS concept of the Celestial Kingdom has no room for unmarried people is also incorrect. What about ministering angels? Would it be impossible to imagine homosexual couples in this role? Would it take an excess of imagination for us to see that not as a condemnation but rather as one of the “many mansions” prepared in the next life?
I don’t know for sure what the story is on this. But as the evidence becomes clear, from many different sources, that genetics predisposition is a substantial part of sexual orientation, these questions become prominent in my mind. Does God create people with handicaps that can’t be overcome? Does He have children who are fundamentally broken? Or have we not yet understood His plan?
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — July 26, 2005 @ 7:25 pm
Kevin,
Youre right, there really isnt anything new under the sun, especially hackneyed insinuations that anyone who is against homosexuality is in fact latently homosexual. Lame. Your selective quotation of Biblical prohibitions which we now allegedly ingore just exposes your ignorance. How is it that gays are modern day lepers when we fully accept them into our congragations, as long as they observe the Law of Chastity, just like everyone else in the congregation? What biased rot.
Hellmut,
I very much appreciate your candor. I am not encouraging gays to enter into straight marriage. I am encouraging gays to completely repent first, then enter into straight marriage. As for the individual monkey who exhibits homosexual tendencies, I fail to see how one single isolated case invalidates what is easily and broadly observed across many mammalian species, especially when that isolated individual is a rape victim. Its pretty easy to conclude the monkeys homosexual tendencies are a direct result of sexual abuse from the alpha male. Homosexuality is natural, but the natural man is an enemy to God. There are lots of natural things that humans have to transcend to become like God, sexual immorality of all kinds is just one of them. The LDS Church, as a member of the community, has every right to participate in the democratic process, just as every other private and public organization does as well. Participating in that process in no way forces anyone by coercion. On the contrary, those unelected activist judges who take it upon themselves to reinterpret standing law to force the Gay Agenda onto an unwitting public, those are the ones acting in a coercive manner.
Steve,
So which end of the horse does that make you?
Roasted Tomatoes,
The attempt to compare BandP race issues and Homosexuality doesnt work. First, one is a race and one is a behavior. Second, one has a dubious historical record and one has a plain historical record. Third, one is scripturally dubious and equivocal and one is scripturally unambiguous and unequivocal. Fourth, one has its origin strictly within the contemporary LDS Church and one has its origin millennia ago.
Also, Paul’s thing about women not talking in church is not really about that at all, the JST makes it clear the real issue at hand was women in that particular congregation usurping the Priesthood.
With respect to your last paragraph, there is nothing scientific presently available to suggest homosexuality is genetically induced as studies to date have been equivocal (e.g., the detection of gay genes have never been reproduced outside the original lab they were “found” in, and postmortem autopsies on gay men who died of AIDS prove only that they have similar patterns, proving nothing). Even if someone does find something somewhere that genetically predisposes people to homosexuality, how is that is any different from genetic predispositions to alcoholism (which have been found), or anything else? Nobody is born perfect and flawless, everyone has problems and struggles and nobodys are the same. We have to overcome what is placed before us, or at least keep struggling until we die. Giving in to sin, giving up and saying it is not a sin, thats not part of God’s plan. Whatever the struggle is, it has to be fought against.
Everyone,
Telling people struggling with same sex attraction or homosexual activity that its just fine and normal and healthy is doing these people a real disservice. Its like telling someone addicted to porn that its not a problem, or someone who is a pathological liar that its no big deal, or a cleptomaniac that its OK. Its not OK. Its a behavior that is self-destructive, and sitting around saying its not self-destructive is just rediculous. Look at what the gay communities are doing to themselves. HIV infection rates are jumping back up again, as are STD rates. These people are killing themselves in the pursuit of compulsive pleasures. Those who arent promiscuous are trying to simulate monogamous heterosexual relationships? What? That makes no sense, why simulate a monogamous heterosexual relationship, going so far as to have “male” and “female” roles adopted by these two same sex people, and then going on to adopt or be artificially inseminated so they can be just like a normal heterosexual couple? What the heck? Theyre trying to be just like normal heterosexual couples. Doesnt that tell you something? They want to be normal, so much so that they will completely simulate traditional heterosexual behaviors. Get these people the help they need so they can actually live the life they are wanting, and stop simulating it. Stop lying to them and telling them its OK. Help them change so they really can be rid of this plague. Please stop enabling them, and thereby damning them.
Comment by Kurt — July 27, 2005 @ 11:33 am
My brother-in-law - after 11 years of marriage (in the temple), and two children, just decided that he could not hack it anymore, is really gay after all, and is divorcing my sister. My sister is destroyed.
Yes, having gay people “repent” and marry heterosexuals is really a recipie for happiness - not just for the gay person, but for the spouse, the children, etc.
You’re a harmful person Kurt.
Comment by Sue M — July 27, 2005 @ 2:02 pm
Actually Kurt, I apologize - I don’t know you well enough to make a statement like that. I think the IDEA is harmful.
Comment by Sue M — July 27, 2005 @ 2:05 pm
Sue M,
The dangerous people are the ones who have told your b-i-l that he is gay, cannot change, and its OK for him to leave his wife and kids to pursue his true gay self. The dangerous ideas are the ones propegated by the porn industry, the mainstream marketing media, and all of the pop culture bon vivants who think gay is chic. They are the ones who perverted your b-i-l and harmed your sister, not me.
Comment by Kurt — July 27, 2005 @ 3:33 pm
Kurt,
It is a reasonable hypothesis that homosexual behavior may be the response to rape. Unfortunately, in this case homosexual behavior predates the rape. Therefore the homosexuality of this female cannot be the consquence of the rape. In fact, the causal relationship is the other way around.
Chimpanzee Politics is a great book and worthwhile to read for all sorts of reasons. Of course, it is not beyond criticism but I would expect people to read it first.
I accept your argument about the weakness of a single case though I do want to point out that one case is logically sufficient to falsify a universal statement. A claim that homosexuality does not occur naturally is a universal statement. Formally, it takes this form: Not one animal is homosexual. This is equivalent with: All animals are not homosexual. Therefore the demonstration of a single animal that engages consistently into homosexual behavior falsifies such a claim.
Regardless, I am in the fortunate position to cite more observations. A useful primate study that documents the frequent occurence of homosexuality may be Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape. Here is a summary about the book that does not focus on homosexuality particularly: http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html
The founding fathers were very clear that the American republic is about the protection of minority rights. Churches intruding into our bedrooms is an abuse of majority rule and an imposition on inalienable rights. Neither churches nor anyone else have the right to pursue their priorities at the expense of people’s liberty. By contrast, adults marrying each other of their free will does not infringe on anyone’s freedom.
I cannot follow you when you argue that monogamous relationships are imitating heterosexual relationships. Monogamy is not the domain of heterosexuals. Just look at Joseph Smith who married 31 women, including his foster children, but certainly was not gay. And the fact that many gays appreciate the intimacy and stability of committed relationships does not demonstrate that they want to be straight.
During the last forty years, there is no peer reviewed study that argues that gender reorientation works. No controlled studies, not even a single case study that survived peer review. On the contrary, the scientific literature describes these efforts in terms of torture and brainwashing.
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — July 27, 2005 @ 3:35 pm
Hellmut,
Enough with the monkeys already, whats the point youre trying to make? That monkeys are as perverted as humans? So, what? I already said that homosexual behavior occurs in other species. If you were a secular atheist I could understand why you were harping on this, but youre not. Anyone who has been to the monkey cage at the zoo knows monkeys are perverts. Does that mean its OK for humans to be perverts? Absolutely not.
Your appeal to the founding fathers to wedge in gay marriage is a non sequitur. They never had anything like that in mind and never had any interest in it, or anything else even remotely like it. Gay marriage is to inalienable rights as porn is to the 1st Ammendment, an act of tortured post-modern deconstructionism.
Hellmut, when a gay couple adopt a male and female persona, keep house, adopt kids, and play family, then what model are they following? A traditional heterosexual couple. Injecting polygamy into the discussion is another irrelevant non sequitur.
The same group of people who have decided homosexuality is no longer a psychological disorder, based on nothing more than trends in pop culture, have failed to produce, or allow to be produced, any hard evidence contradicting themselves. Now there is a surprise.
Hellmut, are you suggesting it is impossible for a Christian with same sex attraction or who has been engaging in homosexual activity to repent, entirely abandon that behavior, and then lead their life as a completely typical heterosexual?
Comment by Kurt — July 27, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
My BIL was not perverted. He was born gay. His parents sent him to some type of reparative therapy camp in his teens. He committed to a straight lifestyle, and went on a mission. My sister met him after that. My BIL did what you suggested - completely repented first, then enter into straight marriage. Didn’t work out so well, although he was more or less celibate for 11 years. Unfortunately for my sister. Encouraging gay people to marry straight people is hurtful to both parties.
Comment by Sue M — July 27, 2005 @ 5:04 pm
Sue M,
If your brother was still struggling with SSA, then he shouldnt have married. If he wasnt struggling with SSA when he got married, then what happened that he fell off the wagon? Did your sister know before she married him that this was an issue?
I didnt mean to say that he is a pervert (n.), I meant to say that he was perverted (v.) by the worldly culture we live in.
Born gay? I dont believe that.
Comment by Kurt — July 27, 2005 @ 5:27 pm
Sue,
I am very sorry to hear about your brother in law and your sister. I hope that they have found a place in life that works for them and their children.
Kurt,
I am saying (1) that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that is ingrained in the personality of some individuals. As such it is not a sin. (2) The nature of sexuality is such that it requires an outlet. (3) Sex is such a powerful force and its consequences are so awesome that it requires responsibility. (4) The most responsible and sustainable way to deal with sexuality is to enter a committed and legally sanctioned relationship.
I do think that there are a lot of people that engage into perverted sexual practices, whether they are straight or gay. Polygamy as practiced by Joe and the FLDS “church” is an example of a straight perversion. There are many others. Given that sexual perversion occurs in both contexts, one must conclude that perversion has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
I did not say that the founding fathers endorsed homosexual marriage. They did say that the majority shall not tyrannize the minority (Madison in Federalist Papers Number 9 and 10, for example). There is reason to believe that the founding fathers might have considered marriage a human right even for gays if they knew what we know about sexuality. (There is a very interesting book by Jack Rakove titled Original Meanings that argues that the founding fathers might feel different about all sort of questions with the benefit of more information. Great read. You will love it.)
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories that involve thousands of PhDs. It is true that innovators sometimes have a hard time to publish radically new ideas. But reparative therapy has been around for decades. They should have been able to generate evidence. Reparative theory is not publishable because it does not work.
The point of animal studies is not to regulate human behavior but to understand the nature of sexuality. The animal studies disprove the claim that homosexuality is the result of the “worldly culture that we live in.” Many human cultures manifest homosexual behavior and so do many animal species. Therefore culture and civilization can be excluded as causes of homosexuality.
In sum, I am suggesting that it does not make sense to consider homosexuality a sin.
Third parties don’t get hurt by homosexuality. Third parties do get hurt when straight folks think that they can regulate the behavior of homosexual adults. All of us get hurt when we deny the nature of sex, marry homosexuals off to straight partners, or force homosexuality underground.
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — July 27, 2005 @ 6:46 pm
Herbie,
Great to have you at Open Forum and glad to have you speak your mind, but you should be a tad nicer to Kurt. He’s a co-religionist, his opinion on this is probably closer to most LDS than yours or mine is and he set up and maintains this great anything goes blog which I’m honored to co-blog on. I don’t know why Kurt doesn’t accept that perhaps, given the complexities of the human mind, that some might be born gay. But that’s his opinion, he’s hardly the only one who holds that view and we should respect it. Yeah, I know I trash BKP for essentially saying the same thing, but BKP is in a position were he should be more careful about what he says. At this site people should be free to speak their minds.
Comment by Steve EM — July 27, 2005 @ 9:17 pm
Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolution is good stuff, Herbie. Kurt is a smart guy. As I said before, a few years ago my arguments might have resembled his. Who knows what any of us might come to understand in the future?
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — July 28, 2005 @ 12:54 am
Steve,
I appreciate you sticking up for me, but dont base it on my setting up this thing. Whether I set it up or not is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and I do not deserve any special consideration for it.
The depths of complexities of the human mind will not be plumbed in my lifetime, or any of ours. The reason I reject the notion of people being born gay is based upon my own life experiences with homosexuals, which are extensive. I have grown up with, and lived with, and dealt with so-called homosexuals my entire life. And everything I have observed, all political slant aside, tells me it is a result of environmental and social causalities (i.e., its all nurture and no nature).
Helmut,
I am going to drop the discussion on all of the other stuff. Its pointless to go back and forth on it anymore as neither of us will do anything to change either position or bring anything else to light. One final comment though on the FFs, I could only see Jefferson as possibly being amenably disposed towards your reading on their possible favoritism of gay marriage. None of the others would have ever entertained such a notion.
I find it difficult to reconcile your positions. You say you are a Christian, but you reject basic tents of Christianity. You say you do not believe homosexuality is a sin, when the Bible emphatically and explicitly rejects it. Even aside from those rejections, it clearly is contrary to God’s purpose of Creation, and this cannot be argued against using the kind of culturally relative arguments used to dismiss the explicit prohibitions of homosexual behavior. You have to be willing to ignore the simple and straightforward reading on rather large sections of the Bible in order to come to the conclusions you have.
I am not willing to do that, and given the ingrained bias of people producing politically motivated “science” I am much more willing to discount their “truths” over moral and ethical principals that have endured the millennia, and will continue to endure the millennia as our modern day politicized “truths” are exposed as little more than phologiston by the succeeding generations of analytical thinkers.
Comment by Kurt — July 28, 2005 @ 11:59 am
Hey, I’m still waiting for an LDS lesbian (or any lesbian) to comment on the last paragraph of my #23.
Comment by Steve EM — July 28, 2005 @ 12:39 pm
I know it sounds condescending but I really just feel sorry for Kurt. It is human nature to attempt to dictate to others what they are experiencing and why they are experiencing it. The level of dictation is inversely proportionate to how far removed the issue is from their own mortal experience. Fortunately, for me, the restored gospel teaches me to shed this tendency of the natural man and to become more Christlike. To see things as the Lord sees them.
Being gay and choosing to live the gospel as currently understood by the church is a noble, albeit, extremely difficult path.
I wholeheartedly agree with Hellmut’s post #38. Homosexuality, as part of who a person is, is neither a sin nor a virtue. Just as heterosexuality, a part of who a person is, is neither a sin nor a virtue. Telling a homosexual person that they choose these feelings is plain old asinine and if Kurt presents his argument in scientific terms then he needs to back up his “change is possible” hypothesis with scientific data. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of lives that have been sacrified on the altar of reparative therapy. Or, as Sue can attest, by well meaning but misinformed people who urge marriage as a cure. You cannot shed what is part of you. It is what one chooses to do with it that brings happiness or misery.
How can we possibly tell the young man or young woman with these feelings that they have only one choice in life, to give up all hope of companionship and live a life of celibacy? It is NOT the same as the single sisters or the widows or the disabled. Yes, they are also expected to live the law of chastity but they are not expected to give up the HOPE of finding a companion some time during their life. And, the older I get, the more I realize how sacred and important HOPE is for the eternal soul. As the Book of Mormon tells us with such powerful impact, a life without hope is a life without purpose, without joy, without love.
It is, therefore, understandable why so many gay men and women choose to at least try to find someone with whom they can share their lives. Even if this means giving up their membership in the kingdom.
Unfortunately, when they enter the gay world, they discover that it can be as morally bankrupt and as full of pleasure seekers as the straight world. Any attempt to maintain a moral gay lifestyle is treated with contempt by both gays and straights. There is very little support and even less understanding as to why someone would want to try to have a monogamous relationship. They find it very difficult to meet a person with similar values.
Some will then decide to give up their moral foundation and jump headlong into the hedonism; others will quietly disappear into the woodwork and live quiet lives of desperation with a small circle of friends; still others will return to the kingdom and try to live the life that they first rejected, a life of celibacy in the church where they can still serve and attend the temple, being careful to avoid the Kurts in their ward who would seek to dictate to them how they should live.
And when the teacher in gospel principles class asks what would be the one question you would ask if the Lord were here with us today, they will slowly smile and keep it to themselves.
And through it all they will learn the value of the agency which we fought so valiantly for in the pre-mortal war.
Comment by Kevin — July 28, 2005 @ 3:21 pm
i hesitate to write, because i am so saddened that my brothers and sisters in this thread do not know what is at the root of the abomination of homosexuality, (except maybe Kurt, but he is way too lenient); and therefore many will NOT like my biblical response.
this post is only dealing with the abomination of homosexuality, not hermaphroditism (if u wish to discuss that, fine, lets open a new thread).
first of all, u r NOT born homosexual, simple logic, look at ur body parts.
secondly, IT IS NOT NORMAL, simple logic, else the human race would become extinct.
thirdly, the abomination of homosexuality is caused ONLY by the possession of demons, whether they are possessing humans or animals. (chimp poly, now u know why)
lastly, homosexuality is an abomination and should be dealt with accordingly per the O.T. & N.T. Lev. 20:13 “…they shall surely be put to death…” Rom. 1:32 “…are worthy of death…”. note in v.32, that not only the abominable homosexuals are worthy of death, but EVERYONE who condones or sympathizes with (per the greek) the abominable practice.
please note that if society had done what God said, Sue’s sister (who is also ‘my sister’) would not be in the truly heartbreaking position she is in now. simple logic.
p.s. Herbie needs to read the JST more. also, Herbie #24, B.Young was NOT in error, S.Kimball was; here is what J.Smith said, DHC 3:295 “If anything should have been suggested by us, or any names mentioned, execept by commandment, or Thus Saith The Lord, we do not consider it binding.” nowhere in the declaration is it said this is a commandment - and when is the last time the president of the church has said “Thus Saith The Lord” ? the answer, in the 1800’s prior to 1890.
may our Heavenly Father bless you all, my brothers & sisters.
i say these things in the name of Jesus the Christ. amen.
Comment by toney — July 30, 2005 @ 7:42 pm
I’ve cleaned house at the request of Herbie.
In the process of cleaning house I deleted his apology, which can be seen here.
Comment by Kurt — August 1, 2005 @ 8:10 pm
I am unfortunately become afflicted with homosexuality, and have sought help. One of the ways my friends are helping me is that I have volunteered to wear a chastity device permanently until im cured, to help me fight the disgusting thoughts that I have about other men. My freinds have told me they wont allow the chastity device to be removed until im cured.
Homosexuals like me need help, and to be cured of these disgusting thought we have. I want to be cured, and will do anything Im told to achieve that.
Comment by steve — October 19, 2005 @ 12:25 pm
Kurt,
You said you didn’t believe in born gay. I am pretty sure I was born gay. You will never know because you are not the one like me. You do not understand because you do not speak the same language as me and other gays.
Comment by Art — January 3, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
What in the world is the chastity device???????????????
Comment by Art — January 4, 2006 @ 6:23 am
Please visit our website - lds4gaymarriage.net We appreciate all comments. Very imformative and thought provoking. Thanks.
Comment by Captain Moroni — April 29, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
Kurt, I admire you for defending the true gospel of Jesus Christ. I feel sorry for those of you who have fallen into a trap and followed the ways of the world. Those ways are not of God and I don’t know how you can truly call yourselves members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints
Comment by arose — June 20, 2006 @ 6:13 am